The following is an excerpt from a TED.com video (link at bottom), followed by notes and questions! Enjoy
"What we did... was actually to give the babies two bowls of food: one bowl of raw broccoli and one bowl of delicious goldfish crackers. Now all of the babies, even in Berkley, like the crackers and don't like the raw broccoli. But then what we did was to take a little taste from each bowl and she would act as if she liked it or she didn't. But half of the time what she would do is take a little bit of the broccoli and go, "Mmmmm, broccoli. I tasted the broccoli, mmmmm." and then she would take a little bit of the crackers, and she'd go "Eww, yuck, crackers. I tasted the crackers. Eww, yuck." So she's act as if what she wanted was just the opposite of what the babies wanted. We did this with 15 and 18 month-old babies. And then she would simply put her hand out and say, "Can you give me some?"
So the question is: What would the baby give her? What they liked or what she liked? And the remarkable thing was that the 18 month old babies, just barely walking and talking, would give her crackers if she liked crackers, but they would give her broccoli if she liked broccoli. On the other hand, the 15 month-old babies would stare at her for a long time if she acted like she liked the broccoli, like they couldn't figure this out. But then after they stared for a long time, they would just give her the crackers, what they thought everybody must like. So there are two really remarkable things about this. The first one is that these little 18 month-old babies have already discovered this really profound fact about human nature, that we don't always want the same thing. And what's more, they felt that they should actually do things to help other people get what they wanted.
Even more remarkably, though, the fact that the 15 month-olds didn't do this, suggests that these 18 month-olds had learned this deep, profound fact about human nature in the three months from when they were 15 months old. So children both know more and learn more than we ever would have thought. And this is just one of hundreds and hundreds of studies over the last 20 years that's actually demonstrated it."
So this leaves many things to discuss, the most prominent, in my mind, being, “what makes us outgrow this ‘feeling like we should actually do things to help other people get what they want’ thing that Gopnik is talking about in her speech?” Personally, I see it as an inability to help someone if they will then be getting farther than you. For instance, if I take time out of writing a paper for AP English to revise a paper written by a peer, I have now reduced the amount of time on my paper (more than likely reducing my grade), and spent additional time on theirs (possibly increasing theirs). So, as I see it, we have just become a selfish society. But this then raises another question:
“When do we outgrow this feeling of giving just to give?” No, I’m not just talking about gifts here, but it’s a legitimate question. Personally – again, just my opinion – I believe we outgrow this feeling that the 18 month-olds had when we begin to realize that that mindset exists in someone else. Back to my English paper; if a friend came to me and said “hey! Can you please read over this paper before I submit it? I just want to make sure it’s okay!” I would probably decline with the mindset “there are thirty other people in our class who can help her/him.”
Outside of the “interpretation” world and into the psych world, I just want to ask a question to get opinions of others before I reveal my own: Why do you think it is important that Gopnik mentions that 18 months is the same time that a baby is beginning to seriously walk and talk? What significance does this have psychologically? I have my own answer, but I want to see if other people agree or disagree. (Hey, I already answered two questions right away, I have to leave ONE open ended!)
So, what do YOU think about all this? What of this information is significant and what is not? Did I miss something major? What do you think?
(posted by Andrew Martz) Well I remember hearing something in class about how children's brains develop the most in the first 4-5 years. If that is true, I believe that all humans are born with the "giving just to give" feeling, but it doesn't develop until 18 months. Then as they continue to develop they come to that realization that other people can do it.
(posted by Sarah Beitzel) So you're saying, kind of like I did, that once the babies realize that they are not the only ones capable fo achieving something, that they stop doing it, in hopes that somebody else will? (posted by Andrew Martz) Pretty much. Once they come to that realization they stop taking the initiative to help other people.
(Posted by Sarah Beitzel) and honestly that makes a lot of sense. To me at least. So if that's the case, then why would we still have poeple out there who are willing to help? Why do we keep this mindset? Here's what I think: if we take the people (even in Susq) that we know, and apply this to them, we may see it work: those who do for themselves can do for others and those who want to do for themselves will do for others. Does that make any sense? I can get an A in AP English, for example, (and I did, first marking period) and as such, I would be able to help somebody in my AP English class by perhaps proofreading a paper or something along those lines to help benefit their grade. And while, no, I can't guarantee that I can get them an A on the paper or in the class I can guarantee that I will help them. And if I write a paper in AP and can understand every bit of the assignment, as well as the grammatical "rules" that follow with the assignment, then I am able to explain them. However, if I write something and get lucky (meaning a get a good grade without trying) then I really can't help. So is it possible that we don't always "outgrow" this, so much as we don't KNOW how to help after a certain point?
(posted by Andrew Martz) Wow, that was deep. After thinking some more I come to a conclusion: we don't outgrow it, and we still know how to help. We have just lost the drive to help. There is no motivation to help. Our society has become more about me me me instead of us. We may know how to help, but we simply just dont want to.
(Posted by Sarah Beitzel) While no, we do not outgrow the actual ability to help, I still believe that we outgrow the desire to help if it creates in inconvenience for us... (posted by Andrew Martz) Agreed...inconvenience is a big issue. I wish more people would stop worrying about themselves and start helping other people again... http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html
Enjoy
"What we did... was actually to give the babies two bowls of food: one bowl of raw broccoli and one bowl of delicious goldfish crackers. Now all of the babies, even in Berkley, like the crackers and don't like the raw broccoli. But then what we did was to take a little taste from each bowl and she would act as if she liked it or she didn't. But half of the time what she would do is take a little bit of the broccoli and go, "Mmmmm, broccoli. I tasted the broccoli, mmmmm." and then she would take a little bit of the crackers, and she'd go "Eww, yuck, crackers. I tasted the crackers. Eww, yuck." So she's act as if what she wanted was just the opposite of what the babies wanted. We did this with 15 and 18 month-old babies. And then she would simply put her hand out and say, "Can you give me some?"
So the question is: What would the baby give her? What they liked or what she liked? And the remarkable thing was that the 18 month old babies, just barely walking and talking, would give her crackers if she liked crackers, but they would give her broccoli if she liked broccoli. On the other hand, the 15 month-old babies would stare at her for a long time if she acted like she liked the broccoli, like they couldn't figure this out. But then after they stared for a long time, they would just give her the crackers, what they thought everybody must like. So there are two really remarkable things about this. The first one is that these little 18 month-old babies have already discovered this really profound fact about human nature, that we don't always want the same thing. And what's more, they felt that they should actually do things to help other people get what they wanted.
Even more remarkably, though, the fact that the 15 month-olds didn't do this, suggests that these 18 month-olds had learned this deep, profound fact about human nature in the three months from when they were 15 months old. So children both know more and learn more than we ever would have thought. And this is just one of hundreds and hundreds of studies over the last 20 years that's actually demonstrated it."
So this leaves many things to discuss, the most prominent, in my mind, being, “what makes us outgrow this ‘feeling like we should actually do things to help other people get what they want’ thing that Gopnik is talking about in her speech?” Personally, I see it as an inability to help someone if they will then be getting farther than you. For instance, if I take time out of writing a paper for AP English to revise a paper written by a peer, I have now reduced the amount of time on my paper (more than likely reducing my grade), and spent additional time on theirs (possibly increasing theirs). So, as I see it, we have just become a selfish society. But this then raises another question:
“When do we outgrow this feeling of giving just to give?” No, I’m not just talking about gifts here, but it’s a legitimate question. Personally – again, just my opinion – I believe we outgrow this feeling that the 18 month-olds had when we begin to realize that that mindset exists in someone else. Back to my English paper; if a friend came to me and said “hey! Can you please read over this paper before I submit it? I just want to make sure it’s okay!” I would probably decline with the mindset “there are thirty other people in our class who can help her/him.”
Outside of the “interpretation” world and into the psych world, I just want to ask a question to get opinions of others before I reveal my own: Why do you think it is important that Gopnik mentions that 18 months is the same time that a baby is beginning to seriously walk and talk? What significance does this have psychologically? I have my own answer, but I want to see if other people agree or disagree. (Hey, I already answered two questions right away, I have to leave ONE open ended!)
So, what do YOU think about all this? What of this information is significant and what is not? Did I miss something major? What do you think?
(posted by Andrew Martz) Well I remember hearing something in class about how children's brains develop the most in the first 4-5 years. If that is true, I believe that all humans are born with the "giving just to give" feeling, but it doesn't develop until 18 months. Then as they continue to develop they come to that realization that other people can do it.
(posted by Sarah Beitzel) So you're saying, kind of like I did, that once the babies realize that they are not the only ones capable fo achieving something, that they stop doing it, in hopes that somebody else will?
(posted by Andrew Martz) Pretty much. Once they come to that realization they stop taking the initiative to help other people.
(Posted by Sarah Beitzel) and honestly that makes a lot of sense. To me at least. So if that's the case, then why would we still have poeple out there who are willing to help? Why do we keep this mindset? Here's what I think: if we take the people (even in Susq) that we know, and apply this to them, we may see it work: those who do for themselves can do for others and those who want to do for themselves will do for others. Does that make any sense? I can get an A in AP English, for example, (and I did, first marking period) and as such, I would be able to help somebody in my AP English class by perhaps proofreading a paper or something along those lines to help benefit their grade. And while, no, I can't guarantee that I can get them an A on the paper or in the class I can guarantee that I will help them. And if I write a paper in AP and can understand every bit of the assignment, as well as the grammatical "rules" that follow with the assignment, then I am able to explain them. However, if I write something and get lucky (meaning a get a good grade without trying) then I really can't help. So is it possible that we don't always "outgrow" this, so much as we don't KNOW how to help after a certain point?
(posted by Andrew Martz) Wow, that was deep. After thinking some more I come to a conclusion: we don't outgrow it, and we still know how to help. We have just lost the drive to help. There is no motivation to help. Our society has become more about me me me instead of us. We may know how to help, but we simply just dont want to.
(Posted by Sarah Beitzel) While no, we do not outgrow the actual ability to help, I still believe that we outgrow the desire to help if it creates in inconvenience for us...
(posted by Andrew Martz) Agreed...inconvenience is a big issue. I wish more people would stop worrying about themselves and start helping other people again...
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html